Mark Heaton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The internal diagonal of the sarcophagus is 112
> digits and 112 x 2.5 = 280 cubits as the height of
> the pyramid.

112 digits x 2.5 = 10 royal cubits

> The image of a sphere with a diameter of 280
> cubits is latent in the north-south vertical and
> east-west vertical cross-sections which are each
> equal in area to a circle with a diameter of 280
> cubits for the pi approximation 22/7 which may
> have been regarded as exact..

A couple of points needed here. The archaeologic field work of Petrie 1881 (9068.8"), Cole 1935 (9069.45") and Dash-Paulson 2015 (9069.42") provide a mean side length of 9069.097 inches for Khufu's base or 439.82 royal cubits @ 20.62 in., to arrive at 440 royal cubits per side for the pyramid base it requires a metric of 20.61 inches per royal cubit. The irony here is Petrie determined the weighted mean of 20.62" +/-.005" for the royal cubit, and 20.61" is not within his weighted mean average.

He goes on (Petrie) that he estimated as time passed after Khufu built his pyramid the royal cubit became less accurate... with Khafre's pyramid and Menkaure's pyramid, yet Khafre's pyramid is exactly 411 using 20.62" (Petrie 1881 and Marigioli & Rinaldi 1965) so Petrie contradicts himself again as Khafre's pyramid was built after Khufu's. So, 22/7 pi is based on 440 side lengths, however if you stick with 20.62" royal cubit (as Petrie infers) then you get 3.14157143;

9069.097"/20.62" = 439.82
439.82/140 (1/2 Khufu's pyramid height) = 3.14157143

These results are based on three independent field surveys published in 3 different centuries.

> If the internal volume is doubled then this
> corresponds to the volume framed by the edges of
> the sarcophagus which was only determined by
> Smyth. The volume ground out of the surfaces is
> then the difference between Smyth's external
> volume and Petrie's external volume.
> The smaller external volume, as determined by
> Petrie, corresponds to a sphere with a diameter of
> 22/7 cubits, so the external volume defined by the
> edges was the reference volume, and the true
> volume determined by Petrie was the symbolic
> volume.
>
> Smyth claimed that a lid fitting the rebate would
> fit inside the sarcophagus as an internal diagonal
> flush with the top. I checked, then had my
> calculations checked on CAD, and this is so.
>
> Smyth argued that the lid was not intended to be
> put in the rebate as this would spoil the design.
> I checked, and found that insertion of the lid in
> the rebate effects a geometric transition.
>
> In 2004, I spotted the 1760 digit theory of the
> King's Chamber which has since been highlighted by
> Keith Hamilton and Dave Lightbody without
> mentioning me. The perimeter of the base of the
> pyramid is 1760 cubits. Both can be regarded as
> the circumference of a circle with a radius of
> '280'
> The height of the pyramid is 280 cubits as the
> radius of a virtual circle, and the length of the
> King's Chamber is 560 digits as the diameter of a
> virtual circle, so the King's Chamber is a model
> of the pi shape of the Great Pyramid on a scale of
> one digit to one cubit which is a 1 to 28 scale
> model.

Assuming the builder of the rectangular sarcophagus was told by the designer of the pyramid to carve the stone so the exterior volume will match the extracted interior volume, because the rectangular chamber it was going to be placed in was purposely designed as a pi model for the four sided square base pyramid it resides in, then perhaps your on to something, or maybe not.

There are a remarkable number of maths or numbers you can pull from all the measurements, however clever we might think the Egyptians were we can't impose our modern thoughts or ideas on what they were up to when they decided to build these enormous structures. Egyptologists are at a loss when it comes to culture inside of the broad terms they do understand. Something that's 4.5 - 5 thousand years old is difficult to find a constructive solution for it's appearance.

"In some extreme cases, this line of research has led to complicated interpretations based on symbolic and esoteric concepts. These theories do not necessarily provide any useful information about the ancient culture to which they are supposed to refer, but on the other hand they may play an important role in a study of the culture and the historical period that produced them – that is, Europe in the last two centuries. The modern diffusion of a scientific and logical way of thinking seems to have corresponded to a growing need for an imaginary escape into mysterious worlds, where there are still secrets to discover. Egypt, with its impressively oversized architectural remains, its legendary wealth, its obscure and fascinating writing, seems to be the ideal candidate to hide the key of a lost wisdom. Even if the ancient Egyptians would have been flattered by this attitude, the results of this kind of speculation have, unfortunately, little to do with the actual historical and archaeological remains." (Rossi)

Best,

B.A.Hokom